From a New York Times article on the find: "Dr. King has reiterated that the fragment is not proof that Jesus was married because it was most likely written three and a half centuries after his death, making it historically unreliable."

We have dozens of these late "gospels". With the exception of the four gospels in modern Bibles, these lost gospels tell us more about early medieval religious cults and hardly anything at all about the historical Jesus.

[quote] also just as fake as... the cat in the hat.[/quote] @Andicicle: WHAT YOU LIAR TAKE THAT BACK AT ONCE!!!!! (lolz!)

@Slotherder: Even this article suggests several times it "might be fake". Even if the `paper` is from 200AD the writing could have come much later, even last year! There`s lots of tests these things need to pass, the Carbon Dating is a big one though.

Argh I worded that horribly. The papyrus isn`t dated from 200 AD the original text which the papyrus is translating from Greek to Coptic is dated from 200 AD, to which the papyrus may add detail, if confirmed authentic. (a huge if) Still worded horribly, but hopefully more sensibly.

"If Catholic priests could marry (like almost every other religion out there) I`d could make a pretty strong case that fewer boys would have been touched in the sacristy."

That was my first reaction but the reality is boys are abused in church because the environment attracts pedophiles, and at the same time the environment protects those very pedophiles, although not so much anymore. I really doubt that a person can just turn into a pedophile. But the addition of marriage would help because more people would join the priesthood which would allow the church to replace priests who are showing signs of abusive behavior.

CrakrJak, always reliable when it comes to pull-it-out-yer-rear conclusions based off of what he`d prefer to believe instead of what is actually known. 1. This papyrus thus far is dated to approximately 200 AD (we have yet to see if the ink is genuine, or forged). The EARLIEST known writings of new testament are from AT BEST approximately the same period. Most of what comprises new testament dates from 100-200 years later. 2. As noted earlier, it`s not necessary to come up with your own BS reasoning to discount the meaning of this yet due to the fact that there is still much to be verified/disproven. Prof. King, and Harvard in general have come under quite a bit of academic criticism for publishing on this so soon.

It`s good to know you have fail-safes against results that don`t readily work with your preconceived notions in place though. Can`t have reality getting in the way of beliefs.

Whether or not this is fake, part of the reason Catholic priests can`t marry is because they believe Jesus was celibate. If Catholic priests could marry (like almost every other religion out there) I`d could make a pretty strong case that fewer boys would have been touched in the sacristy.

Also, the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, Dan Brown has said this several times.

In Jewish tradition, during the time when Jesus lived, the rank of "Rabbi" meant that the person was married, or had a wife. There are some other hints in the bible, namely in the Gospel of John, referring to the beloved deciple, or "..the other diciple, the one Jesus loved,..."

"While this particular bit of parchment is most likely fake, there`s plenty of evidence that Jesus WAS INDEED married within the existing Bible. There`s no doubt the Catholic Church "creatively enhanced" parts of the New Testament, but enough got left behind to make a strong case for a married Jesus."

Again I am agreeing with you 5Cats. Funny part is more than likely he was married to Mary of Magdala. So to promote male dominance the editors of the bible basically called Jesus` wife a whore. Although maybe she was in the bedroom. Ba dum tss.

While this particular bit of parchment is most likely fake, there`s plenty of evidence that Jesus WAS INDEED married within the existing Bible. There`s no doubt the Catholic Church "creatively enhanced" parts of the New Testament, but enough got left behind to make a strong case for a married Jesus.

Seriously long answers are needed though, so perhaps our resident Christians could explain it better. The "water into wine" and "raising of Lazerus" being the two events I know most about.

@defendors87: Short answer: no. The "Canon" (Gospels + Paul`s writings + them other books) makes no mention directly of Jesus getting married or having a wife. Directly is the important part.

There are early, non-canonical texts and images that suggest that at one time christianity was at least ambiguous about such things as gay marriage and female priests/bishops. Only later, with authority, power and hierarchy did cold judgemental dogma take control.

... If you think the bible is constituted from the only gospels ever written, please proceed to fall on a knife. There are hundreds of other gospels that were written, but only a select few made the cut.